Gun control vs. criminal control

[WoodPeckr]

On the economic side, cutting taxes and easing the regulatory burden on business helps the economy to thrive and flourish, creating more and better-paying jobs in the process,....

This is a myth. There is NO WAY American workers can compete against workers making 30-55 cents/hr wages in developing countries like Mexico, Red China, etc. Companies paying only min. wages in the USA are folding and sending their jobs to China, Mexico, Haiti etc. Many of those 'better-paying jobs' created during Clinton's terms that paid $60-100K are now being offshored to India, Ireland, Philipines, Mexico, to name a few, and paying workers there only $9-12K now over there. In the past US policy, like other countries realized protecting good paying jobs was key to securing a better standard of living for all their citizens, along with keeping crime down and also was just as important as national defense. Sadly this is no longer the case under a present 'Greed is Good' corporate mindset.

Also, in addition to punishment, rehabilitation and re-integration are important too;...

If you watched that video expose I posted above,

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8451.htm

you would have noted there is no concern with 'rehabilitation and re-integration' in most of the US prisons today, it is all about punishment, nothing more.

Collective forms of exercise of 2nd Amendment rights in the form of groups like the Minutemen could also one day prove enormously useful as a cost-free auxiliary to professional police forces in providing the sort of diffuse police presence needed to both deter and respond to crime.

Creating more gun-crazed vigilante groups, or groups like David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco Texas, or the family of Randy Weaver and his cult/group at Ruby Ridge won't solve anything except make those types even more paranoid than they already are. Those para-military types all claim they are 'needed to both deter and respond to crime' and what good did they accomplish?

 

[papasmerf]

The question is, how are going to pay for the system we have now?

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1270755

You are correct, the costs are too high now. What with never ending appeals. Fully equipted gyms. A variety of courses being offered, cable TV, subscriptions to every magizine ever printed. Death Rows with people awaiting exicutions for decades. Sueciede watches of one to one. You are right this is expensive. Prision farms, road crews are cruel and inhuman.

Prehaps we should take a page from CASTRO's book and release these criminals from the prisions and send them NORTH to the neaerst country. Verify to the world tat if these prisioners show up in the US they will be killed and let them become someone elses problem. Yes this seems to have worked in Cuba. Why not use this revelutionary idea here. After all what harm could it do to let them out and drive them Notrh?

 

[langeweile]

Unless the underlying economic causes of crime are addressed (namely jobs being exported from the USA) the prison industry/populations will continue to surge. As things are heading expect monies earmarked for education to be diverted to prison construction as more cells are needed for future prisoners.

This gives me an idea. Maybe we should outsource our prisons? We build cheap prisons in China or India. Man them with cheap guards..et voila.
Anyone interested in starting a new company? Prisoners Outsourced International aka POI.
Pm me.

 

[oldjones]

This gives me an idea. Maybe we should outsource our prisons? We build cheap prisons in China or India. Man them with cheap guards..et voila.
Anyone interested in starting a new company? Prisoners Outsourced International aka POI.
Pm me.

I believe Devil's Island is currently vacant, and right nearby too. Transportation would be cheap.

 

[Truncador]

In the past US policy, like other countries realized protecting good paying jobs was key to securing a better standard of living for all their citizens, along with keeping crime down and also was just as important as national defense. Sadly this is no longer the case under a present 'Greed is Good' corporate mindset.

And yet, for all the hooh-hah, the national unemployment rate for the month of March was only 5.2 percent.

If you watched that video expose I posted above,

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8451.htm

you would have noted there is no concern with 'rehabilitation and re-integration' in most of the US prisons today, it is all about punishment, nothing more.

I'm unable to watch the video right now, but I have no doubt that American prisons aren't fun places to be- especially for inmates who attack guards. They do have lots of rehabilitation and training programs, though; I read that they were even giving training courses to the enemy combatants detained at Gauntanamo Bay.

Creating more gun-crazed vigilante groups, or groups like David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco Texas, or the family of Randy Weaver and his cult/group at Ruby Ridge won't solve anything except make those types even more paranoid than they already are. Those para-military types all claim they are 'needed to both deter and respond to crime' and what good did they accomplish?

Koresh's and Weaver's outfits were nutbar, doomsday cults that had retreated from society altogether. They had nothing to do with the idea of citizens coming together to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State. Personally, I'd be a lot more afraid of the gun-crazed government stormtroopers who slaughtered them than I would be of either group, but that's an aside. Saying that all civil society policing organizations are dangerous because some whacko cults had guns reminds me of the feminists who say that all sex is rape because some men are rapists.

 

[papasmerf]

This gives me an idea. Maybe we should outsource our prisons? We build cheap prisons in China or India. Man them with cheap guards..et voila.
Anyone interested in starting a new company? Prisoners Outsourced International aka POI.
Pm me.

I like the way you think. Fly them to the offshore prison with a one way ticket and if the need to go to court for an appeal let it be on their dime? Give them the money back if they win.

 

[onthebottom]

When you ban guns only the criminals will have them.

While I'm not a gun owner, nor do I plan on becoming one I think citizens should have BOTH the right and responsibility of gun ownership. If you use a gun in a crime - life. If your kid kills himself with your gun - life. If your gun is stolen and used in a crime - life. And given that we register such ordinary things as cars I think it is reasonable to register and tax-the-shit-out-of guns as well - even if they are sold on the secondary market. Oh yeah, possession of an unregistered gun, you guessed it - motherfucking life.

Have a nice day.

OTB

 

[papasmerf]

When you ban guns only the criminals will have them.

While I'm not a gun owner, nor do I plan on becoming one I think citizens should have BOTH the right and responsibility of gun ownership. If you use a gun in a crime - life. If your kid kills himself with your gun - life. If your gun is stolen and used in a crime - life. And given that we register such ordinary things as cars I think it is reasonable to register and tax-the-shit-out-of guns as well - even if they are sold on the secondary market. Oh yeah, possession of an unregistered gun, you guessed it - motherfucking life.

Have a nice day.

OTB

So if your kid borrows your car, drives it into wall and dies. You should go to jail for life.

If your car is stolen and used in a crime. You get life.

Man you are tuff.

 

[onthebottom]

So if your kid borrows your car, drives it into wall and dies. You should go to jail for life.

If your car is stolen and used in a crime. You get life.

Man you are tuff.

Cars main purpose - transportation.

Gun main purpose - killing stuff.

I think there are very few (as a percentage) gun accidents analogous to your car example, one would be my kid shoots a rifle at a deer and hits a hunter.....

I see a difference......

OTB

 

[Peeping Tom]

Then perhaps if your car is stolen and used in a crime, life as well? There is a better case for this, as you don't have any Constitutional rights to own a car. And nowhere in the 2nd does it mention registration. The point here is about criminals and how to deal with them - as such, mention that a law abiding citizen go to jail for the acts of a criminal is rather heinous.

As demonstrated in Canada, registration is useless and rather expensive to boot. I would like to see Congress attempt to table this, given that the Canadian example implemented in America would have a cost approaching 200 billion.

 

[papasmerf]

Cars main purpose - transportation.

Gun main purpose - killing stuff.

I think there are very few (as a percentage) gun accidents analogous to your car example, one would be my kid shoots a rifle at a deer and hits a hunter.....

I see a difference......

OTB

You give a very good example. Is that murder? Homicide? Accidental death?

Was your son properly trained in the use of the firearm? There is a rule simply put never shoot if human life could be in the line of sight. He shot so he was not trained. This falls on you for giving a gun to someone who you did not verify his ability. If you trained him then he had a fool for a teacher.

Did your son leave the house with the intent of killing this huneter? If he did then it is premeditated murder and he should fry. You would be an accomplice.

Did you sone leave the house with the intent to just kill someone? If so this would likely be second degree murder. If tried he would be 25 to life. You would be an accomplice

Did he on the spur of the moment decide to kill??? Then he is likely guilty of manslughter. 15 to life out in 7.5. You are an accomplice with probation.

Did he accidently shoot the man??? NOT A CHANCE. You gave an ill trained person a gun. He was likely to kill.

You should never own a weapon. You have proven yourself unfit to have one.

 

[Asterix]

Collective forms of exercise of 2nd Amendment rights in the form of groups like the Minutemen could also one day prove enormously useful as a cost-free auxiliary to professional police forces in providing the sort of diffuse police presence needed to both deter and respond to crime.

You're joking, right? The last thing professional police departments want would be armed civilian militias trying to "help". Go and ask any city police chief in the country and I'd bet you'd be met with a resounding no, if not simply laughed out of the building. Oh, and it's funny you mention the Minutemen. Their latest project is to try and patrol the Arizona border during the month of April, sitting in their lawn chairs, binoculars and guns at the ready. Problem is they seem to be getting in the way, often tripping the motion sensors themselves, so that the border patrol now has to bother dealing with them in addition to their real job. Meanwhile, the group Aryan Nation has weighed in, calling the Minuteman Project in Arizona "a white pride event". Maybe you don't consider them vigilantes, but guess how President Bush describes them?

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050324-122200-6209r.htm

 

[Truncador]

You're joking, right? The last thing professional police departments want would be armed civilian militias trying to "help". Go and ask any city police chief in the country and I'd bet you'd be met with a resounding no, if not simply laughed out of the building.

Well, police chiefs have an obvious vested interest in trying to maintain a monopoly on the use of force. Twenty years ago they also laughed at the idea of concealed-carry permits for civilians. Thing is, they weren't in a position to say no to that and they aren't in a position to say no to civil society policing organizations. Arms-bearing is, first and foremost, a matter of fundamental human rights: the typical American state constitution says something like "the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned", but nothing about a professional monopoly on law enforcement. If anything, the burden would rest with professional police forces to justify their existence to armed citizens, not the other way around- especially in light of the Founding Fathers' well-known belief that giving any professional body a monopoly on arms would lead to the downfall of democracy.

In any case, it would ultimately be in their own interest to work with civil society policing organizations, should the citizens exercise their inherent right to form them. Recently there's been a lot of talk about community policing and the need for partnerships between police forces and the communities they serve. CSPOs could serve as exactly the sort of bridge between professional forces and the community at large needed to make these goals a reality.

Meanwhile, the group Aryan Nation has weighed in, calling the Minuteman Project in Arizona "a white pride event".

Yeah radical groups are always trying to read their own agendas into the actions of others, claiming that those actions are really an inarticulate practice of their own pet ideology, whatever it may be. The Minutemen themselves, however, state on the front page of their website that:

The Minuteman Project has no affiliation with, nor will we accept any assistance by or interference from separatists, racists or supremacy groups or individuals, no matter what their race, color, or creed

The group also counts several people of colour and non-"Aryans" in their ranks.

Maybe you don't consider them vigilantes, but guess how President Bush describes them?

Whatever Pres. Bush might call them (for diplomatic reasons or otherwise), I rest my case on "civil society policing organization".

 

[Asterix]

I take it all back about the Minutemen. These guys wouldn't qualify as vigilantes in a bad 1950's B movie. Community policing? You abuse the concept by associating it with them. Any police department that would consider using them, or anyone like them, in an "auxiliary" capacity for anything, should have their collective heads examined.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/05/20/news-cooper.php

 

[WoodPeckr]

Arms-bearing is, first and foremost, a matter of fundamental human rights: the typical American state constitution says something like "the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned", but nothing about a professional monopoly on law enforcement.

You do have a very 'liberal' interpretation of the US Constitution to say the least.

For the record here is that 2nd Amendment in the US Constitution:

Text Of The Second Amendment

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So taking the position of a conservative strict-constructionist of the US Constitution and not that liberal postion you seem to espouse, the only people allowed to bear Arms are those who have joined a well regulated Militia and NOT every Tom, Dick & Harry....or Koresh & Weaver & Aryan Nation & Minuteman for that matter!

 

[oldjones]

You give a very good example. Is that murder? Homicide? Accidental death?

Was your son properly trained in the use of the firearm? There is a rule simply put never shoot if human life could be in the line of sight. He shot so he was not trained. This falls on you for giving a gun to someone who you did not verify his ability. If you trained him then he had a fool for a teacher.

Did your son leave the house with the intent of killing this huneter? If he did then it is premeditated murder and he should fry. You would be an accomplice.

Did you sone leave the house with the intent to just kill someone? If so this would likely be second degree murder. If tried he would be 25 to life. You would be an accomplice

Did he on the spur of the moment decide to kill??? Then he is likely guilty of manslughter. 15 to life out in 7.5. You are an accomplice with probation.

Did he accidently shoot the man??? NOT A CHANCE. You gave an ill trained person a gun. He was likely to kill.

You should never own a weapon. You have proven yourself unfit to have one.

Ah but in spite of what you say, he has the right to own that gun, irresponsible owner or not. So now what do you propose to do about this "unfit" gun owner?
OTB is owning up to the responsibiliies that flow from that ownership, which the law could and should quite properly define.

 

[langeweile]

Like driving a car, motorcycle and bus or steering a boat. if one wants to own a gun he/she should have a license and should be trained on how to handle it.
A license to own a gun should be a minimum requirement. It should also include a registration and an explanation as to the use.
period.

 

[batista7777]

I agree with some of you. However the main concern is not about how we govern gun control, but rather how we can stop guns from smuggling into the country. Buying a gun (such as an ak-16 or a small 32-mil)is as easy as getting a carton of milk or a loaf of bread from a convienent store. Sure we have strict gun laws- but these laws are meaningless unless something can be done to prevent gun smugglers, which think should be just as harsh of penalty as committing one.

As for criminal control we don't live in a third world counrty. So it's different for countries such as Cuba, China, Iran, and India because they don't have the money to do so. Our government has more money than brains. But yeh, I can see where your coming from bro.

You are correct, the costs are too high now. What with never ending appeals. Fully equipted gyms. A variety of courses being offered, cable TV, subscriptions to every magizine ever printed. Death Rows with people awaiting exicutions for decades. Sueciede watches of one to one. You are right this is expensive. Prision farms, road crews are cruel and inhuman.

Prehaps we should take a page from CASTRO's book and release these criminals from the prisions and send them NORTH to the neaerst country. Verify to the world tat if these prisioners show up in the US they will be killed and let them become someone elses problem. Yes this seems to have worked in Cuba. Why not use this revelutionary idea here. After all what harm could it do to let them out and drive them Notrh?

 

[Truncador]

So taking the position of a conservative strict-constructionist of the US Constitution and not that liberal postion you seem to espouse, the only people allowed to bear Arms are those who have joined a well regulated Militia and NOT every Tom, Dick & Harry....or Koresh & Weaver & Aryan Nation & Minuteman for that matter!

I'm not a conservative, so strict constructionism means little to me. Interpreting the militia clause of the 2nd would involving figuring out what the Founding Fathers meant by a "well regulated militia" and then working out a way to allow the people to exercise their right to maintain one in the present. I agree that not everybody should be running around forming their own armed groups at will- but that situation is the fault of governments and the courts for not creating any instruments through which the people can exercise their rights in a more orderly and satisfactory manner. Until they do so, people can hardly be blamed for taking the initiative themselves; nothing could be further from the spirit of the Bill of Rights, the 2nd in particular, than waiting for permission from government to exercise one's own inherent rights.

The most plausible interpretation of the concept of a "well-regulated militia" is of a community body that works in partnership with government and is subject to regulation, but isn't just a branch of the armed forces. The best way to make this workable in practical terms today would be to recognize the NRA as the "well-regulated militia" of the 2nd, making them responsible for training and licensing gun owners, regulating the gun industry, and partnering with professional police forces in order to develop and co-ordinate efforts to allow citizens to take a more active role in law-enforcement and the "security of a free State".

 

[WoodPeckr]

Interpreting the militia clause of the 2nd would involving figuring out what the Founding Fathers meant by a "well regulated militia".....

I think the Founding Fathers intent in the 2nd Amendment is quite clear:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The most plausible interpretation of the concept of a "well-regulated militia" at that time seemed to mean each of the then 13 States would have their own unique Militia, Army, National Guard or whatever you want to call it, and it would be "well regulated." It looks like the FF meant its citizens could bear arms as long as they were a member of a "well-regulated militia".

Of course since that time the 2nd Amendment has been very liberally interpreted to mean just about anyone who wants arms is allowed to have them.

As far as elevating the NRA in stature here I don't think that is such a good idea .... afterall weren't they the ones who proposed putting more guns in all schools lockers across the USA as a way to remedy our plethora of 'Columbine style' school shootings????